Speed Camera U-Turn report in The Times page 3
Discussion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1694858,00.html
Speed camera U-turn as 500 sites rejected
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
THE Government is blocking the installation of nearly 500 new speed cameras amid signs that ministers are beginning to doubt the effectiveness of the devices.
The 38 camera partnerships, which include police forces and local authorities, have been ordered not to use cameras at any new sites. The ban includes places where there have been several fatal crashes caused by speeding vehicles.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) condemned the ban, saying that it could cost lives because dangerous roads were being left unprotected by cameras.
The Department for Transport is reviewing the rules on deploying cameras after concerns that partnerships have failed to consider alternatives, such as improving junctions or erecting warning signs.
The review is being overseen by Stephen Ladyman, the new Road Safety Minister, who has been caught three times by speed cameras and at one stage had nine points on his licence, one offence away from a six-month ban. More than two million drivers received speed camera fines last year, a tenfold increase in less than a decade.
In a letter sent to the partnerships this week, the department said that it had decided not to approve any more sites until it received a report on the peformance of existing sites. It ordered partnerships to revise their budgets because they would receive less revenue than expected from fines. Under the scheme introduced five years ago, partnerships are allowed to keep a proportion of camera fines to pay for more cameras.
The scheme has prompted claims that partnership staff may favour cameras over other solutions because they need to ensure a steady flow of income to pay their salaries. The department is understood to be concerned that it may have exaggerated the benefits of cameras by failing to allow for the random nature of crashes.
Partnership managers accused the department of failing to give an adequate explanation for the ban. One told The Times: “We submitted our operational case in November but the department has been dragging its feet for eight months. They are clearly rethinking their policy but they haven’t got the honesty to say so.”
Ian Bell, Acpo’s speed camera liaison officer, said: “I am concerned that any delay in installing cameras where they are most needed increases the risk of speed-related crashes.
“All the sites submitted for approval to the department meet the existing criteria so it is difficult to understand why they have not been approved.”
There must have been at least four crashes involving death or serious injury per kilometre in the previous three years before a fixed camera can be installed, or two crashes for a mobile camera.
Three people died recently in two collisions on a road in Cheshire which had already had enough crashes to qualify for a camera. Lee Murphy, manager of the Cheshire partnership, said that the deaths had happened in May, six months after he had applied to the department for permission to begin mobile camera enforcement. “We were still waiting for a response when the accidents happened. We have now decided to use cameras there anyway because we just can’t wait any longer.”
Forces can deploy cameras wherever they choose for up to 15 per cent of the total time that they spend enforcing speed limits.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which supports speed cameras, admitted yesterday that some may not be justified. Rob Gifford, the council’s director, said: “In some cases a partnership may have chosen to install a camera when an engineering solution may have been better.
“But we still believe the department should have the courage of its convictions. Cameras have been proven to work, and people may die if there is a delay in enforcing a site.”
Mr Gifford said the doubling of camera sites to about 6,000 in the past five years had helped to reduce speeding. Since 2000 the proportion of vehicles exceeding the limit in 30mph zones has fallen from 66 per cent to 53 per cent.
Paul Smith, of the anti-camera campaign Safe Speed, said: “I’m delighted that the department appears to be realising that it has used bogus statistics to justify more cameras.”
Speed camera U-turn as 500 sites rejected
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
THE Government is blocking the installation of nearly 500 new speed cameras amid signs that ministers are beginning to doubt the effectiveness of the devices.
The 38 camera partnerships, which include police forces and local authorities, have been ordered not to use cameras at any new sites. The ban includes places where there have been several fatal crashes caused by speeding vehicles.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) condemned the ban, saying that it could cost lives because dangerous roads were being left unprotected by cameras.
The Department for Transport is reviewing the rules on deploying cameras after concerns that partnerships have failed to consider alternatives, such as improving junctions or erecting warning signs.
The review is being overseen by Stephen Ladyman, the new Road Safety Minister, who has been caught three times by speed cameras and at one stage had nine points on his licence, one offence away from a six-month ban. More than two million drivers received speed camera fines last year, a tenfold increase in less than a decade.
In a letter sent to the partnerships this week, the department said that it had decided not to approve any more sites until it received a report on the peformance of existing sites. It ordered partnerships to revise their budgets because they would receive less revenue than expected from fines. Under the scheme introduced five years ago, partnerships are allowed to keep a proportion of camera fines to pay for more cameras.
The scheme has prompted claims that partnership staff may favour cameras over other solutions because they need to ensure a steady flow of income to pay their salaries. The department is understood to be concerned that it may have exaggerated the benefits of cameras by failing to allow for the random nature of crashes.
Partnership managers accused the department of failing to give an adequate explanation for the ban. One told The Times: “We submitted our operational case in November but the department has been dragging its feet for eight months. They are clearly rethinking their policy but they haven’t got the honesty to say so.”
Ian Bell, Acpo’s speed camera liaison officer, said: “I am concerned that any delay in installing cameras where they are most needed increases the risk of speed-related crashes.
“All the sites submitted for approval to the department meet the existing criteria so it is difficult to understand why they have not been approved.”
There must have been at least four crashes involving death or serious injury per kilometre in the previous three years before a fixed camera can be installed, or two crashes for a mobile camera.
Three people died recently in two collisions on a road in Cheshire which had already had enough crashes to qualify for a camera. Lee Murphy, manager of the Cheshire partnership, said that the deaths had happened in May, six months after he had applied to the department for permission to begin mobile camera enforcement. “We were still waiting for a response when the accidents happened. We have now decided to use cameras there anyway because we just can’t wait any longer.”
Forces can deploy cameras wherever they choose for up to 15 per cent of the total time that they spend enforcing speed limits.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which supports speed cameras, admitted yesterday that some may not be justified. Rob Gifford, the council’s director, said: “In some cases a partnership may have chosen to install a camera when an engineering solution may have been better.
“But we still believe the department should have the courage of its convictions. Cameras have been proven to work, and people may die if there is a delay in enforcing a site.”
Mr Gifford said the doubling of camera sites to about 6,000 in the past five years had helped to reduce speeding. Since 2000 the proportion of vehicles exceeding the limit in 30mph zones has fallen from 66 per cent to 53 per cent.
Paul Smith, of the anti-camera campaign Safe Speed, said: “I’m delighted that the department appears to be realising that it has used bogus statistics to justify more cameras.”
article said:
Ian Bell, Acpo’s speed camera liaison officer, said: “I am concerned that any delay in installing cameras where they are most needed increases the risk of speed-related crashes.
Whilst the delay also reduces non-speeding related crashes as concentration isn't distracted. Even if speed does caus 1/3 of accidents (which we know it doesn't), then surely helping prevent 2/3s is better?
also said:
“All the sites submitted for approval to the department meet the existing criteria so it is difficult to understand why they have not been approved.”
Because speed cameras don't work?
leosayer said:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1694858,00.html
"We submitted our operational case in November but the department has been dragging its feet for eight months. They are clearly rethinking their policy but they haven’t got the honesty to say so.”
Kettle, pot, black!
leosayer said:
In a letter sent to the partnerships this week, the department said that it had decided not to approve any more sites until it received a report on the peformance of existing sites.
And therein lies the rub, because the report it receives will be a glowing testament of how many lives they've saved (
) and then it will be business as usual again. These devices are not going to go away. We have passed the point of no return. There are too many vested interests, and too many livelihoods depend on them.
For any camera that's pulled down, the first accident afterwards will be blamed on it's removal, and lawsuits will fly from bereaved relatives. That's the world we live in, unfortunately.
Take down the scamera, put in a hazard sign or maybe an automatic speed sign that shows how fast your going, and re-engineer the road appropriately.
I'm quite sure alot of accident black spots are that way because of the road layout, not the speed.
If it was purely speed that was the problem then motorways would be blackspots all over!
Hopefully Mr Ladyman will realise this amazing fact and suggest that partnerships only use scameras as a last resort after all other measures have failed.
I don't see a problem with camera's in really really bad areas, but even then if those areas are known to be dangerous, they should be engineered to be safer. If you don't know the scamera is there your not going to go slower where maybe you should, and if you know it's there your attention is on the bloody speedo and camera, not the dodgy road!
Every reasonable arguement suggests they ultimately do nothing except make money and make criminals of good drivers.
Blackspots don't need more mental diversions, blackspots need to be remedied completely.
And as always, crazy speeding drivers will always be crazy, and justify going at innapropriate speeds at the next section after a scamera, and make the next bend of the road a blackspot for accidents.
Good drivers just get penalised for the actions of the idiots, while the idiots just crash somewhere else!
Scamera's will never cut road deaths. Partnerships will always spread lies about how effective they are, but hopefully in the coming year will be found to be lying and cherry picking their data!
Dave
I'm quite sure alot of accident black spots are that way because of the road layout, not the speed.
If it was purely speed that was the problem then motorways would be blackspots all over!
Hopefully Mr Ladyman will realise this amazing fact and suggest that partnerships only use scameras as a last resort after all other measures have failed.
I don't see a problem with camera's in really really bad areas, but even then if those areas are known to be dangerous, they should be engineered to be safer. If you don't know the scamera is there your not going to go slower where maybe you should, and if you know it's there your attention is on the bloody speedo and camera, not the dodgy road!
Every reasonable arguement suggests they ultimately do nothing except make money and make criminals of good drivers.
Blackspots don't need more mental diversions, blackspots need to be remedied completely.
And as always, crazy speeding drivers will always be crazy, and justify going at innapropriate speeds at the next section after a scamera, and make the next bend of the road a blackspot for accidents.
Good drivers just get penalised for the actions of the idiots, while the idiots just crash somewhere else!
Scamera's will never cut road deaths. Partnerships will always spread lies about how effective they are, but hopefully in the coming year will be found to be lying and cherry picking their data!
Dave
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff